OK, the context is a bit removed from the gaming world and the D&D edition wars, but I have been on the ‘Dilbert’ side of exchanges like this all too often.

Two recent dialogues I’ve been involved in were very much like this. In the first, I was defending the old-style rust monster and those DMs who sometimes chose to use them, and (despite me not even mentioning 4e) it was interpreted as an attack on the entire 4e D&D system. I found myself on the receiving end of a very, er, robust and vigorous defence of something I’d never set out to attack, from someone who seemed to take my comments very personally. (Even more bizarrely, this person started waving bits of artwork of their 4e character’s loot at me, and proclaimed they couldn’t imagine anyone being inspired by previous editions to create depictions of their character’s stuff. I was, frankly, incredulous).

The other one was a comment I made about my preference for a play style that didn’t assume the players would win every encounter – saying that if (note the use of the word *if* there, because it’s a very important word despite being only two letters long) ‘modern’ gaming was about the players never having to run away then I wanted nothing to do with it. I was really talking about player attitudes here. I was accused of ‘fuelling the edition wars’ with my ‘ignorant’ comment and that ‘modern’ gaming had no such requirements for the players always winning built in – a claim I had never made in the first place. And I never said anything about any edition.

I don’t intend to embarass anyone by linking to these exchanges. But like Dilbert, I really find this behaviour baffling. People, if you really want the edition wars to stop – then don’t be the Sales Guy in that cartoon.

I’m the person who made the second comment, and I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. Are you seriously saying that you were not making a sly comment about editions? If you weren’t, and had no intention of implying such things, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.

I remain skeptical, though. We are all aware that one of the frequent arguments made against “encounter-based design” or “balanced encounters” is that they presuppose that the players always win. Given the larger overall context, I think that saying people are “changing everything you say” has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I have encountered, numerous times, a similar behavior on the interwebs. If you state something as a bit of data (the sky is blue), you are assumed to be endorsing and encouraging that point of view (what, no other plants have skies that aren’t blue!). That by simply mentioning something you instantaneously become the champion of that bit of data. Now, add in the fact that sometimes a topic can be controversial and things get *really* interesting.

Often I think it is a combination of people not only learning how to communicate through text, but also learning exactly what the hell they are trying to communicate.

For instance(I think this might be a good example), let’s take say a passage from the bible and give it to 10 people. Let them read it and then ask them what the meaning of the passage is. You’ll likely get 10 different answers. This is what I think happens when we all discuss games.

A person may feel as though they are communicating their thoughts properly through text, but another person may completely misinterpret it, this could be based on a misunderstanding or something completely different, and when you’re communicating back and forth using just text with basically complete strangers over the internet it’s difficult to tell what the basis of the miscommunication really is.

Yes I am honestly saying that I wasn’t making a sly comment about editions, so I’ll accept your apology. My comment was a pure face-value one in response to Bone Scroll’s post, and I had player psychology in mind when I wrote it rather than anything to do with editions. As far as I can recall, advice on matching encounters to character level, in various forms, has been present in all the editions I’ve played since Holmes blue book, albeit taken to a more exact science with each edition.

My problem isn’t with this. Referees have always been free to pay as much or as little attention to that advice as they wish. My problem is with players who assume they are ‘supposed’ to win. This is metagaming – basing the character’s actions on the player’s assessment of the DM’s motivations and psychology instead of putting themselves in the character’s shoes and seeing that things are going badly and realising it’s time to pull out.

I don’t think it’s a good play style to either try to emotionally blackmail the DM into letting the party win by pressing on against the odds, nor is it a good play style to complain that the encounter was badly designed when your blackmail attempt fails and your characters buy the farm.

I don’t see this has anything to do with editions, though. Yes, I said ‘modern’ gaming. That doesn’t equate to whatever edition of whatever system you like to play, Murph, nor was my comment an attack on that. In terms of system/edition, anything people are playing right now could be described as modern gaming. But I wasn’t talking about systems or editions, I was talking about a play style (more prevalent I think in modern times than it was ‘back in the day’, at least this is the impression I have) that assumes the players are always suppposed to win, and that I wanted nothing to with playing in this style.

@All: Thanks for the comments, guys. I was really just letting off a little steam here, built-up over the course of the year or so that I’ve been on the network. My message to everyone is, that if I want to say that edition X or the people who play it has attribute Y, then I will make an explicit statement to that effect in my post or comment. If you don’t see such a statement, don’t assume I’m implying it!

That being the case, I do apologize. Communication by text is always interesting, as we’ve discovered here today. There is always a gap between how we write things and how others perceive them.

For me, I come into “modern” gaming with a somewhat old-school sensibility. I skipped playing 3e pretty much completely, after a long time with 2e, 1e and lots of side trips into things like WFRP and VtM. So I look at a rulebook more like an “old-school” gamer does – a bunch of ideas that I can implement the way I want.

I’ve heard anecdotally that a lot of people try to play the 4e RAW, which I think is a mistake in general terms. Any RPG system should be tweaked to fit the group and DM, and I don’t see 4e being any different.

I think the base idea, that modern gaming systems assume success, is largely the result of many years of people not enjoying failure. Which is a conclusion I could have told you after spending 1 day at any sporting event. As a DM, I have to say that I do assume success. We all do. Otherwise, why would you plan out the next adventure/encounter. If the players don’t succeed, what is the point of the game?

This isn’t to say that success should not be challenging, and there are lots of degrees of success – and degrees of failure as well, but in a combat, I have to say that the players and I sort of assume success. It’s not emotional blackmail to say that 3 tpks in the last 4 sessions weren’t much fun.

Ultimately, I’d go back to Bone Scroll and say “it depends on the maturity level of the players, and on the atmosphere that the dm has created”. I know I played in plenty of “old-school” games where we never came close to death, and weren’t even seriously challenged after a certain point. If you make the world seem dangerous, then they will take the threat of fatality seriously. If they don’t, then kill a few, and see how they like them apples.